Related Links

Letters to the editor - June 28, 2013

Published: Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 11:37 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 11:37 p.m.

New bridge unnecessary

So the Cape Fear Skyway, long discredited as an economic calamity, lives on. The N.C. Department of Transportation is plunging ahead, spending millions on planning how – not whether – to spend a billion dollars.

Two things make a fourth river crossing unnecessary: Pat Batleman and other Brunswick County officials suggest, quite astutely, that the new I-140 bridge will solve most of the problem when its western connection is complete. That will divert through traffic and serve development to the north of Wilmington, the only direction it can go.

And what of the Isabel Holmes bridge? It's in the right place, but it is not used efficiently because of horrid approaches at both ends.

Some of the millions that would be spent on engineering a fourth river crossing should be spent building a proper interchange to replace the tee at the western end of the Isabel Holmes bridge, then a road to connect straight on to I-140 to carry traffic around the Eagles Island bottleneck and Leland.

Such a link is not on the planning maps, but seems too obvious to ignore.

The eastern approach is another mess, but could be corrected.

Michael Rice, Southport

The writer is a member of Save the Cape.

Do what's best for all

As residents of Leland, we enjoy living in the Wilmington area. Like many of our neighbors, we moved here from the North for a friendlier, slower-paced life – along with the benefit of a lower cost of living.

So, it has been disturbing to hear numerous stories in the media over recent months about changes in the state's tax structure, designed to benefit those of "moderate to high income" at the expense of those who aren't.

With a significant number of new North Carolina residents being in the 55-plus age group (and in various stages of retirement), most folks are not in that category.

Yes, everyone needs to pay a fair share, but taxing common essential services puts a greater burden on consumers as well as small-business owners. This isn't a fair option for most of the state's residents.

Another area of concern is relaxing gun laws to allow guns at public gatherings and establishments. How will this have a positive effect on public safety? It is obvious that it will do just the opposite. Also, a handgun license will no longer be required?

Legislators are like kids in a candy store, reaching for everything they can. Do what is best for all residents.

John Lapatchka, Leland

Inequity in stormwater rules

As our legislature addresses regulations in North Carolina, I encourage them to address the inequity in our current stormwater management laws. Specifically, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules on stormwater management have led to the state's rules, which in turn have led to local rules, which, in turn, have put private citizens in the role of providing free services to towns and municipalities.

Each stormwater pond permit requires renewal at specific intervals – usually every 10 years. The renewal is the responsibility of the permit holder. In our case, here in our development, that may require a fee of $200,000 to be shared by 85 homeowners every 10 years to meet the re-permitting requirements.

To add to the inequity, all homeowners pay a stormwater fee to the local government to repair and maintain infrastructure in the town, but none of those fees are applied to wet detention ponds in our development or any other developments in the town.

To compound the problem, the town's property drains into our ponds, adding up to 50 percent of the collected sediment. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources needs to change the permitting process for wet detention ponds to make towns and municipalities responsible for all stormwater runoff, including wet detention ponds within planned communities.

<p><b>New bridge unnecessary</b></p><p>So the <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic28"><b>Cape Fear Skyway</b></a>, long discredited as an economic calamity, lives on. The N.C. Department of Transportation is plunging ahead, spending millions on planning how – not whether – to spend a billion dollars.</p><p>Two things make a fourth river crossing unnecessary: Pat Batleman and other Brunswick County officials suggest, quite astutely, that the new I-140 bridge will solve most of the problem when its western connection is complete. That will divert through traffic and serve development to the north of Wilmington, the only direction it can go.</p><p>And what of the Isabel Holmes bridge? It's in the right place, but it is not used efficiently because of horrid approaches at both ends. </p><p>Some of the millions that would be spent on engineering a fourth river crossing should be spent building a proper interchange to replace the tee at the western end of the Isabel Holmes bridge, then a road to connect straight on to I-140 to carry traffic around the Eagles Island bottleneck and <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic9971"><b>Leland</b></a>. </p><p>Such a link is not on the planning maps, but seems too obvious to ignore.</p><p>The eastern approach is another mess, but could be corrected.</p><p>Michael Rice, Southport</p><p><i>The writer is a member of Save the Cape.</i></p><h3>Do what's best for all</h3>
<p>As residents of <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic9971"><b>Leland</b></a>, we enjoy living in the Wilmington area. Like many of our neighbors, we moved here from the North for a friendlier, slower-paced life – along with the benefit of a lower cost of living.</p><p>So, it has been disturbing to hear numerous stories in the media over recent months about changes in the state's tax structure, designed to benefit those of "moderate to high income" at the expense of those who aren't.</p><p>With a significant number of new North Carolina residents being in the 55-plus age group (and in various stages of retirement), most folks are not in that category. </p><p>Yes, everyone needs to pay a fair share, but taxing common essential services puts a greater burden on consumers as well as small-business owners. This isn't a fair option for most of the state's residents.</p><p>Another area of concern is relaxing gun laws to allow guns at public gatherings and establishments. How will this have a positive effect on public safety? It is obvious that it will do just the opposite. Also, a handgun license will no longer be required?</p><p>Legislators are like kids in a candy store, reaching for everything they can. Do what is best for all residents.</p><p>John Lapatchka, Leland</p><h3>Inequity in stormwater rules</h3>
<p>As our legislature addresses regulations in North Carolina, I encourage them to address the inequity in our current stormwater management laws. Specifically, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules on stormwater management have led to the state's rules, which in turn have led to local rules, which, in turn, have put private citizens in the role of providing free services to towns and municipalities.</p><p>Each stormwater pond permit requires renewal at specific intervals – usually every 10 years. The renewal is the responsibility of the permit holder. In our case, here in our development, that may require a fee of $200,000 to be shared by 85 homeowners every 10 years to meet the re-permitting requirements. </p><p>To add to the inequity, all homeowners pay a stormwater fee to the local government to repair and maintain infrastructure in the town, but none of those fees are applied to wet detention ponds in our development or any other developments in the town.</p><p>To compound the problem, the town's property drains into our ponds, adding up to 50 percent of the collected sediment. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources needs to change the permitting process for wet detention ponds to make towns and municipalities responsible for all stormwater runoff, including wet detention ponds within planned communities.</p><p>David Duffrin, Kure Beach</p>